The failure of LBJ's Great Society

[Redwingfan9]

poverty rates have stagnated amongst all demographics or have increased.

Same reason is slowed for all demographics. Wealth pooling made mobility stagnate due to credit replacing wage increases. It's a capital corner Stone to use means that generates money based on interest.

This is due to a lot of factors. Over policing and "cracking Down" on crime has resulted in removing black individuals from families and making employment harder to obtain above minimum wage levels. This leads to homes needing more resources. Wage stagnation tempts people to sell drugs or utilize other means of income to make ends met or to thrive. The downfall is that it tends to breed high risk and dangerous environments.

Then why aren't the number equivalent by capital in other demographics? Then it's more reasonable to end the drug war and reform drug policy to bring down the violent crime rate. This is the problem with highly unregulated markets without a judicial system to air grievances and address contracts. Black Markets cause massive amount of problems.

You have not established that welfare replaced fathers. Men can also qualify for food stamps, rent assistance, heat/electric assistance, and Medicaid. The larger issue seems to be judicial and a large black Market system that is used to make up for massive failures on the system. The market tends to fill in for needs. Right now it's hard for the general market to compete with an unregulated, highly lucrative market of sex and drug. We need to reform and bring these markets back into the main fold.

Then this should be easily demonstrable across demographics. What is seen more is that companies like McDonalds and Walmart tend to roll multiples jobs into a single unit and have skeleton crews work multiple positions to minimize costs. Lowering or abolishing the minimum wage without strong union backing for the workers would just race wages to the bottom.

Its actually the opposite. Minimal standards means that black americans tends to be accepted to the minimum then the rest of the spots tend to be filled by other demographics. The problem here is that affirmative action doesnt take lower qualified blacks and push them to higher schools by any significan standard. AA also applies based on applicants. The schools cant invent applicants so schools tend to market themselves to applicants.

You didnt demonstrate any of that though. Systemic racism includes segregation, slavery, red lining, and over policing. Adequate measures have not been taken to rectify these issues and have resulted in a very high bar demanded of african americans while also causing a negative feedback loop. Several policies help to reinforce problems within the black community but the "Freedom" of the market hasn't been demonstrated to be the cause. What would you say is preventing black entrepreneurship that couldn't also be extrapolated to other demographics.

Segregation ended over half a century ago, slavery over 150 years ago. Those are excuses at this point. Half of violent crime in America is committed by young black men. Based on the police homicide statistics it's easy to argue black neighborhoods are actually under policed. That said, I favor ending the war on drugs which would eliminate the drug gangs that drive violent black crime.

I have most certainly shown that welfare has replaced fathers in poor black homes. Over 75% of births are illegitimate, over 2/3 of black children are raised by single mother households. You have two things at play here. First there is no doubt there is a staggering level of gross immorality that swept black culture in the form of whoremongering. That can be said of society at large too, white illegitimacy is over 30%. However in black communities, which tend poorer, it's more cost effective to have single mother households because the more income a family has the less they get in welfare. It actually pays to be on welfare programs and not work or not have two income earners in the home. Poor blacks are making the rational choice based on the immoral offers of the state.

As for the minimum wage, teenagers aren't worth $15/hr. Market rate for them is far less. Because they aren't allowed to sell their labor at a rate lower than the state's arbitrary declaration, more end up unemployment and on the streets with nothing to do but get in trouble. This especially hurts black kids because they don't learn job skills, don't earn any money and are more likely to get in trouble.

It's worse than that though. Discrimination is easy with a minimum wage. Employers end up having dozens of applicants, none of whom are worth minimum wage, for fewer johs than would exist without a minimum wage. If an employer wanted to discriminate against blacks or anyone else it would be easy. It's a lot more difficult to discriminate when there are fewer applicants due to market wages. On the high end, black and white doctors are paid the same for similar work. Why? Because it's too costly to discriminate against black applicants, it requires having a white applicant with the same skillset willing to work for the wage on offer. That's a costly proposition. It also applies on the low end, you have to be able to find a white worker willing to work for market wages, a difficult and costly proposition which makes discrimination far less likely.

 

[Speedwell]

As for the minimum wage, teenagers aren't worth $15/hr. Market rate for them is far less. Because they aren't allowed to sell their labor at a rate lower than the state's arbitrary declaration, more end up unemployment and on the streets with nothing to do but get in trouble. This especially hurts black kids because they don't learn job skills, don't earn any money and are more likely to get in trouble.

And street businesses and markets are ruthlessly suppressed, eliminating entrepreneurship opportunities which are available to poor youth in other countries. The only street business with enough cash flow to offset the risk of police interference is drugs.

So what's the alternative to minimum wage? That it is a wage intended for teen-age part-timers and young entry-level workers not yet encumbered by family responsibilities is a dream of the past. It has been raised (in a misguided way--I agree with you that it's a mistake) because for too many adults it is the most they will ever earn.

 

[istodolez]

No one loves to be on welfare. What's that got to do with anything?

That seems to be the biggest sticking point for so many Conservatives, though. They seem to be of the opinion that some people will just stay on welfare, presumably because it's better than working. But I've never met so many people who would prefer to live in poverty than work.

It's WHY you are on welfare that matters and WHY you remain on welfare. Americans are NOT poor. The majority of poor in America are rich compaired to the rest of the world.

"Compared to the rest of the world" doesn't matter. If that were the case then YOU AND I should be happy making $3/day because that's more than most people on earth make. But there isn't really anyone on earth who measure poverty or wealth that way.

I get affordable healthcare is needed. We all need it! But I don't know how it specifically raises someone out of poverty.

50% of bankruptcies in the US come from medical costs. Most of us are one random lay-off round away from having zero healthcare coverage. Considering healthcare is an absolute need of every single human being but is among the least affordable or accessible in the US, why WOULDN'T it be associated with poverty?

It is rare that they are poor cause they can't pay their medical bills.

66.5% of bankruptcies due to medical costs: This is the real reason most Americans file for bankruptcy.

I know it does happen, but it's rare.

In what world is 66.5% "rare"?

Paying teachers more won't fix the issue either. Most schools are bad because the teachers are terrible.

And paying teachers more would get more teachers of quality. But I'm also not willing to go with this blanket statement of "most are terrible".

And sharing the common wealth is a Marxist idea.

No it isn't. It's called "society". You and I both benefit from it every single day. Do you drive on highways? Do you have electricity? Do you have clean running water? Do you think you could afford ANY of those things if you were responsible for covering the costs of the things you use by yourself? LOL

I dont believe in mandatory sentencing.
But I would like to see fair sentencing. If two people have committed the exact same crime and have the exact same criminal history they should suffer the same consequences. For most things that IS the case in America.

Not really. Income correlates to ability to afford better representation and why do you think DA's push for "plea deals" so robustly?

Also: https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/06/21/us-criminal-justice-system-fuels-poverty-cycle

Economic Justice

I don't know how changing mandatory sentencing gets non criminals off if welfare.

It's not a matter of getting non-criminals off welfare, it's a matter of keeping more criminals from being "made" and then forced into poverty and back onto welfare.

Felons, upon release, have a nearly impossible time finding good paying jobs (or jobs at all). (you can actually google this and find tons of reports on this topic). Jobs are usually the way Americans make money (other than welfare and crime). So I think you can see the OBVIOUS connection there.

If you give someone mandatory sentencing as opposed to being able to let them off (as often happens to white kids for the same crimes) you automatically put a barrier in their way to getting a job sufficient to lift them out of poverty.

 

[istodolez]

This emotional outburst seems to suggest that you believe the only way to help the hungry is to give them food. Is that correct?

No, it's not correct. I was making a general point using metaphor. Food, in this case, being a metaphor for larger "support" mechanisms. But food is a great place to start because 11.1 percent (14.3 million) of U.S. households were food insecure at some time during 2018. (SOURCE). And food is something almost every human needs!

Sheesh. Are you always this literal?

And "outburst"? Do you not read much? I mean, I simply used a metaphorical construction to make a snarkier comment and you think it was an "emotional outburst"? LOL.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

No, it's not correct. I was making a general point using metaphor. Food, in this case, being a metaphor for larger "support" mechanisms.

Remember, I am trying to keep things simple so we are focusing on food and specifically your original statement regarding the hungry.You think giving people money to buy food (or whatever else) is the only way to feed the hungry. Is that correct?

 

[Dryskale]

Segregation ended over half a century ago, slavery over 150 years ago. Those are excuses at this point.

That is 1.5 Generations ago. Red lining came in and established itself literally right afterwards, then the war on drugs when Red Lining took over. Let's also not forget about For Propgut prisons that like high incarceration rates to keep a revenue stream.

Half of violent crime in America is committed by young black men. Based on the police homicide statistics it's easy to argue black neighborhoods are actually under policed. That said, I favor ending the war on drugs which would eliminate the drug gangs that drive violent black crime.

So let's end the War on drugs and that will take care of the 13/50 narative.

I have most certainly shown that welfare has replaced fathers in poor black homes.

No you havent. You have made several correlations, but have not extrapolated as to how it causes it. Of welfare is the problem, then it should be demonstrable among all demographics, but it isn't. That means there are X factors you aren't controlling for.

Over 75% of births are illegitimate, over 2/3 of black children are raised by single mother households.

You have not established why yet. Like I mentioned before there are several x factors you are not controlling for.

You have two things at play here. First there is no doubt there is a staggering level of gross immorality that swept black culture in the form of whoremongering. That can be said of society at large too, white illegitimacy is over 30%. However in black communities, which tend poorer, it's more cost effective to have single mother households because the more income a family has the less they get in welfare. It actually pays to be on welfare programs and not work or not have two income earners in the home. Poor blacks are making the rational choice based on the immoral offers of the state.

Can you explain why this would be intrinsic to Black People and not white people? What are the x factors?

As for the minimum wage, teenagers aren't worth $15/hr.

The federal standard is $7.25, not 15. 15 is extremely rare.

Market rate for them is far less. Because they aren't allowed to sell their labor at a rate lower than the state's arbitrary declaration, more end up unemployment and on the streets with nothing to do but get in trouble. This especially hurts black kids because they don't learn job skills, don't earn any money and are more likely to get in trouble.

Your argument isn't sound. You havent used an example, so it's purely hypothetical. Basing wage on age instead of supply and demand is not a market force, but an arbitrary rule placed upon them. What examples can you provide where employees are over payed?

It's worse than that though. Discrimination is easy with a minimum wage. Employers end up having dozens of applicants, none of whom are worth minimum wage, for fewer johs than would exist without a minimum wage. If an employer wanted to discriminate against blacks or anyone else it would be easy. It's a lot more difficult to discriminate when there are fewer applicants due to market wages. On the high end, black and white doctors are paid the same for similar work. Why? Because it's too costly to discriminate against black applicants, it requires having a white applicant with the same skillset willing to work for the wage on offer. That's a costly proposition. It also applies on the low end, you have to be able to find a white worker willing to work for market wages, a difficult and costly proposition which makes discrimination far less likely.

Can you give an example where the market wage is inflated?

 

[istodolez]

Remember, I am trying to keep things simple so we are focusing on food and specifically your original statement regarding the hungry.You think giving people money to buy food (or whatever else) is the only way to feed the hungry. Is that correct?

Not sure what the game is here. In the US we rely on "SNAP" benefits. And, when our social safety net falls far short of the need we also have foodbanks which give out literal food.

What am I missing?

AND: again, reducing poverty, improving equity and access to jobs and healthcare will vastly improve people's ability to get food on their own.

So what's your point?

 

[rjs330]

That seems to be the biggest sticking point for so many Conservatives, though. They seem to be of the opinion that some people will just stay on welfare, presumably because it's better than working. But I've never met so many people who would prefer to live in poverty than work.



"Compared to the rest of the world" doesn't matter. If that were the case then YOU AND I should be happy making $3/day because that's more than most people on earth make. But there isn't really anyone on earth who measure poverty or wealth that way.



50% of bankruptcies in the US come from medical costs. Most of us are one random lay-off round away from having zero healthcare coverage. Considering healthcare is an absolute need of every single human being but is among the least affordable or accessible in the US, why WOULDN'T it be associated with poverty?



66.5% of bankruptcies due to medical costs: This is the real reason most Americans file for bankruptcy.



In what world is 66.5% "rare"?



And paying teachers more would get more teachers of quality. But I'm also not willing to go with this blanket statement of "most are terrible".



No it isn't. It's called "society". You and I both benefit from it every single day. Do you drive on highways? Do you have electricity? Do you have clean running water? Do you think you could afford ANY of those things if you were responsible for covering the costs of the things you use by yourself? LOL



Not really. Income correlates to ability to afford better representation and why do you think DA's push for "plea deals" so robustly?

Also: US: Criminal Justice System Fuels Poverty Cycle | Human Rights Watch

Economic Justice



It's not a matter of getting non-criminals off welfare, it's a matter of keeping more criminals from being "made" and then forced into poverty and back onto welfare.

Felons, upon release, have a nearly impossible time finding good paying jobs (or jobs at all). (you can actually google this and find tons of reports on this topic). Jobs are usually the way Americans make money (other than welfare and crime). So I think you can see the OBVIOUS connection there.

If you give someone mandatory sentencing as opposed to being able to let them off (as often happens to white kids for the same crimes) you automatically put a barrier in their way to getting a job sufficient to lift them out of poverty.

1. Conservatives believe that healthy people able to work who stay on welfare do so because it's easier. It's easier due to the fact that the way welfare works they lose benefits if they do work. The amount of money they gain for working isn't enough to make up for the lost welfare. I'm most states you earn more on welfare than you would on minimum wage. In fact you earn more in some places than a teacher or secretary.

States Where Welfare Recipients Are Paid More Than Minimum Wage

So why work? Conservatives believe we ought to get people into the workforce which helps them and the economy. We do that through education and training. Only 9% of people over 25 live in poverty. Most of them are elderly who no longer work and cannot. Those we should assist. If you are truly unable to work because you are physically or mentally unable we should help you. If you are able to work then we should push you to education or training so you can go to work.

There are already 21% of the people on welfare programs. Yet there are only 16% of the people in poverty and most of them are teens and younger who are too young to work or work minimum wage jobs cause they are teens. How much bigger do we need the program to be? There is no need for it.

2. Medical bankruptcy does not create poverty.
You are wrong. Only 17% of bankruptcies are medically based.
https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/f...tion of their data,level than to middle class.

Column: Medical bankruptcy is an American scandal — and that's not debatable

So no it does not CAUSE poverty.

3. I had a typo in my teachers comment I meant to say teachers are NOT terrible. We have good teachers here in the US. They do need to be paid more. But it is not the teachers fault that inner city schools are bad. It's the kids fault because they don't value the education. And the schools are not doing things to push the kids to learn.

School vouchers work. Yet the left doesn't want that. In DC kids graduated at a higher rate yet the left ended the program. Studies show that kids graduated at a higher rate and attended college at at a higher rate. In fact vouchers encouraged other schools to get better.

Bottom line we all know that education is important. But seeing that the vast majority of those in poverty are people under 25 or the elderly I'm not sure how education helps them.

4. Common wealth is a Marxist communist ideal. We don't have common wealth. Wealth is earned and belongs to the individual. Yes we have roads which benefit every person. Welfare only benefits individuals by taking money from one and giving to another. Our wealth is not a pool. We don't out all our money into a pot. We shouldn't.
Welfare needs more reform. TWO THIRDS of our government spending is on social programs. TWO THIRDS. How much more do we need to spend!?

We need to help the elderly poor who can't work. We need to help the disabled who can't work. And we need to get the healthy poor to work by education and training. I would rather spend my money helping them get OUT of poverty than spend it letting them stay there. And like I said earlier. In the end that would reduce cost and benefit them. Which is who we really care about. Give a man a fish or teach a man to fish?

 

[istodolez]

1. Conservatives believe that healthy people able to work who stay on welfare do so because it's easier.

This is my biggest issue with Conservatives view of poor Americans. I know there are probably some number of slackers who are so incredibly lazy that living on scraps of change is better than working. But I have NEVER met that many in my life as US citizen. MOST people I've met want to be employed and living above the poverty line.

Conservatives are so obsessed with someone getting a PENNY the conservative has determined that they didn't earn that we are scared to even act like we care about our fellow citizens.

Just look at the COVID response. Early on the BIGGEST ISSUE for Republicans was "What if someone makes more money on unemployment than they did when they were employed?" and that was slowing down necessary help to people on the verge of losing everything.

So why work?

Again, you must live in a very different America than I ever saw.

If you are truly unable to work because you are physically or mentally unable we should help you. If you are able to work then we should push you to education or training so you can go to work.

What about ex-felons who CAN work, who WANT to work but have an almost impossible time finding jobs? What about people with children who wind up in low wage jobs unable to afford child care? You know it's a lot more than just "laziness" that keeps people on welfare.

2. Medical bankruptcy does not create poverty.
You are wrong. Only 17% of bankruptcies are medically based.
https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/full/10.1377/hlthaff.25.w74#:~:text=A reexamination of their data,level than to middle class.

Sounds like we disagree on research.

So no it does not CAUSE poverty.

So you're OK with 17% of bankruptcies in the US being caused by something literally EVERYONE IN THIS COUNTRY needs? That's "OK" by your metric?

3. I had a typo in my teachers comment I meant to say teachers are NOT terrible

Thanks.

4. Common wealth is a Marxist communist ideal.

So you are unaware that there are FOUR "states" in the US that are technically Commonwealths, right?
(KY, VA, PA and MA).

Wealth is earned and belongs to the individual. Yes we have roads which benefit every person. Welfare only benefits individuals by taking money from one and giving to another. Our wealth is not a pool. We don't out all our money into a pot. We shouldn't.

If you have lived your life in the USA you have NEVER lived in a country that doesn't do that. Sorry to burst your bubble. We pay taxes (common pot) which are then apportioned to cover various costs, each of which is FAR TOO EXPENSIVE for individuals to afford. That's kind of the way it all works and has for your entire life here in the US.

And I, honestly, cannot think of anything better to spend our money on than our society...and that means EVERYONE in it.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Not sure what the game is here. In the US we rely on "SNAP" benefits. And, when our social safety net falls far short of the need we also have foodbanks which give out literal food.

What am I missing?

AND: again, reducing poverty, improving equity and access to jobs and healthcare will vastly improve people's ability to get food on their own.

So what's your point?

There is no game. As difficult as it is to focus I have to ask that we do not go down rabbit trails and stick to the single thread I am trying to untangle. Now please answer the simple question, do you believe that giving someone food, whether in the forum of SNAP or other, the only way to help people who are hungry and cannot afford food?

 

[istodolez]

There is no game. As difficult as it is to focus I have to ask that we do not go down rabbit trails and stick to the single thread I am trying to untangle. Now please answer the simple question, do you believe that giving someone food, whether in the forum of SNAP or other, the only way to help people who are hungry and cannot afford food?

I believe I've already answer the question several times now.

Which makes me believe you are trying to play a game and are looking for me to say something that you will then pounce on out of context or whatever.

I've answer the question. Now move on, make your point.

 

[rjs330]

That is 1.5 Generations ago. Red lining came in and established itself literally right afterwards, then the war on drugs when Red Lining took over. Let's also not forget about For Propgut prisons that like high incarceration rates to keep a revenue stream.

So let's end the War on drugs and that will take care of the 13/50 narative.

No you havent. You have made several correlations, but have not extrapolated as to how it causes it. Of welfare is the problem, then it should be demonstrable among all demographics, but it isn't. That means there are X factors you aren't controlling for.

You have not established why yet. Like I mentioned before there are several x factors you are not controlling for.

Can you explain why this would be intrinsic to Black People and not white people? What are the x factors?

The federal standard is $7.25, not 15. 15 is extremely rare. Your argument isn't sound. You havent used an example, so it's purely hypothetical. Basing wage on age instead of supply and demand is not a market force, but an arbitrary rule placed upon them. What examples can you provide where employees are over payed?

Can you give an example where the market wage is inflated?

Just curious.

1. Do you believe the welfare system has anything to do with single parent families white or black?

2. If not then what do you believe the x factor is? Or perhaps what the x factors are?

3. It seems you are corollating the war on drugs with black father's not being responsible and being fathers and husband's. How does that work?

4. The number of people earning minimum wage is tiny. Only 2.3% if hourly workers earn minimum wage. 1% of earners over 25 earn minimum wage. So there is a tiny amount of people in that position. So while $15 an hour may not be prevailing in most places neither is the federal minimum wage when looked at in practice. Most businesses do not pay minimum wage to people over 25 who are the main wage earners in our economy.

 

[rjs330]

Not sure what the game is here. In the US we rely on "SNAP" benefits. And, when our social safety net falls far short of the need we also have foodbanks which give out literal food.

What am I missing?

AND: again, reducing poverty, improving equity and access to jobs and healthcare will vastly improve people's ability to get food on their own.

So what's your point?

We had equity and we had equality and we had access to jobs before COVID took us out. Only about 16% of Americans were below the poverty line and most of those were kids who didn't work, teens and elderly who couldn't work. 84% of Americans did not live in poverty.

It's a misnomer to count kids going to school, teens and children who don't work as part of the poverty situation. It inflates the actual numbers. You don't expect teens, kids going to school or just starting out in the workforce to earn decent money. It takes time to build that and by the time they are 25 and older they are. The numbers are misleading.

Those that are unable to work due to disabilities or age should be helped. The rest should work or be trained to work to get out of poverty.

Welfare keeps you in poverty.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Because you concede that there are other ways of feeding the hungry when you stated:

AND: again, reducing poverty, improving equity and access to jobs and healthcare will vastly improve people's ability to get food on their own.

What exactly was your point when you said

Like food? Yeah, I'm a sucker like that. I like to see people in my community NOT starving.

?

Because right now it appears it was a childish attempt at flamming. You're not really 57 like your profile says. You are obviously much younger. Middle twenties at the most.

 

[rjs330]

This is my biggest issue with Conservatives view of poor Americans. I know there are probably some number of slackers who are so incredibly lazy that living on scraps of change is better than working. But I have NEVER met that many in my life as US citizen. MOST people I've met want to be employed and living above the poverty line.

Conservatives are so obsessed with someone getting a PENNY the conservative has determined that they didn't earn that we are scared to even act like we care about our fellow citizens.

Just look at the COVID response. Early on the BIGGEST ISSUE for Republicans was "What if someone makes more money on unemployment than they did when they were employed?" and that was slowing down necessary help to people on the verge of losing everything.



Again, you must live in a very different America than I ever saw.



What about ex-felons who CAN work, who WANT to work but have an almost impossible time finding jobs? What about people with children who wind up in low wage jobs unable to afford child care? You know it's a lot more than just "laziness" that keeps people on welfare.



Sounds like we disagree on research.



So you're OK with 17% of bankruptcies in the US being caused by something literally EVERYONE IN THIS COUNTRY needs? That's "OK" by your metric?



Thanks.



So you are unaware that there are FOUR "states" in the US that are technically Commonwealths, right?
(KY, VA, PA and MA).



If you have lived your life in the USA you have NEVER lived in a country that doesn't do that. Sorry to burst your bubble. We pay taxes (common pot) which are then apportioned to cover various costs, each of which is FAR TOO EXPENSIVE for individuals to afford. That's kind of the way it all works and has for your entire life here in the US.

And I, honestly, cannot think of anything better to spend our money on than our society...and that means EVERYONE in it.

If you haven't met that many then you have no idea what you are talking about. I know plenty who are just like that. They dont work because they lose welfare if they do. It's a trap. It's not exactly that their lazy, its that it doesn't pay in their mind. Why make another $1000 a month when they'll lose $500? They don't see the payoff for the effort.

You are continuing to put out a false narrative and in effect lying about conservatives. Your rhetoric is typical for a leftist marxist. Pure propeganda with not an inch of truth.

You continue to misrepresent what is said in essence lying about it.

Evidence? Saying conservatives obsessed with someone getting a penny and that we are scared to care about our fellow citizens. You are lying. Because nothing I said indicates that.

Taxes should go for infrastructure not to individuals or business. All the lefts crying about big business is a lie. Welfare for business is alive and well in America. Our tax dollars are going to support certain businesses over others. That should not happen. Again

Two thirds of our money goes to social programs to help people. Even though only 16% live believe the poverty line. How much of our money should be spent on that? If we spent the other third would that solv the issue for you?

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Moving on to the next "nope" statement. You said:

Why is the idea of helping other Americans so scary? I've always been curious about that.

Do you really believe conservatives are afraid of helping others? Or are you going to concede this statement to be false for the simple purpose of flamming?

 

[istodolez]

If you haven't met that many then you have no idea what you are talking about. I know plenty who are just like that. They dont work because they lose welfare if they do. It's a trap. It's not exactly that their lazy, its that it doesn't pay in their mind. Why make another $1000 a month when they'll lose $500? They don't see the payoff for the effort.

OK, so I'll take your word for it that you have met tons of the most lazy Americans imaginable. That's sad. I wish you lived in the same USA that I do. It's made up mostly of people who want to work. I've lived all over the US (literally) and while I haven't worked in welfare as you say you have I have met a LOT of Americans.

You are continuing to put out a false narrative and in effect lying about conservatives. Your rhetoric is typical for a leftist marxist. Pure propeganda with not an inch of truth.

Well, you seem to have lost perspective. I have to wonder about your points in general now.

You continue to misrepresent what is said in essence lying about it.

Oh please stop accusing me of lying. You know we CAN disagree without one of us "lying". You are losing perspective and making a mockery of any point you wish to get across with this.

 

[Redwingfan9]

That is 1.5 Generations ago. Red lining came in and established itself literally right afterwards, then the war on drugs when Red Lining took over. Let's also not forget about For Propgut prisons that like high incarceration rates to keep a revenue stream.

So let's end the War on drugs and that will take care of the 13/50 narative.

No you havent. You have made several correlations, but have not extrapolated as to how it causes it. Of welfare is the problem, then it should be demonstrable among all demographics, but it isn't. That means there are X factors you aren't controlling for.

You have not established why yet. Like I mentioned before there are several x factors you are not controlling for.

Can you explain why this would be intrinsic to Black People and not white people? What are the x factors?

The federal standard is $7.25, not 15. 15 is extremely rare. Your argument isn't sound. You havent used an example, so it's purely hypothetical. Basing wage on age instead of supply and demand is not a market force, but an arbitrary rule placed upon them. What examples can you provide where employees are over payed?

Can you give an example where the market wage is inflated?

We see the same problems with the rural poor in almost exclusively white counties in Appalachia. High rates of illegitimacy and welfare. They have drug issues but not gangs.

Red lining isn't a post civil rights phenomenon, it existed long before. Interstingly, despite being red lined into certain neighborhoods black crime was never an out of control problem until welfare and the war on drugs. After those two bad collections of legislation, crime increased among all people but they especially hurt the poorest, who are black.

As for the minimum wage, $15 is only an exemplar because it's been in the news for years now. The Federal wage is likely below market value, even for teens these days. That would explain the low teen unemployment prior to the Corona overreaction. Many states have higher minimum wages though.

The market wage is the market wage. It's what someone is willing to pay and what someone is willing to accept for a certain job. Wages are only inflated when government places a floor on wages.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

I honestly thought you were smarter than that. I made a flippant off-hand comment

And there is the problem. Your entire post was nothing but "flippant off-hand" comments void of any facts. It provided no value at all to the conversation. You are merely using this forum to therapeuticly vent your frustrations so you can feel better about yourself throughout your day. As long as we both agree that everything you posted was off-handed nonsense, my "nope" comment was more than sufficient.

 

[istodolez]

And there is the problem. Your entire post was nothing but "flippant off-hand" comments void of any facts.

Not really. You picked out ONE phrase and drew a ridiculous conclusion from it.

As long as we both agree that everything you posted was off-handed nonsense, my "nope" comment was more than sufficient.

You are boring me with your over-extrapolation. Perhaps in your world this comes across as "clever" but it just bores me.

Sorry. Please leave me alone.